General Keith Kerr who appeared as a “spontantous” questioner on CNN’s YouTube Republican Debates hosted by Anderson Cooper is a member of the Hillary Clinton campaign. But this was not mentioned upfront, Kerr treated as a regular, spontaneous questioner. Shouldn’t that have been made clear to the audience? Or does CNN think it’s OK to sandbag the GOP candidates with a Hillary operative without mentioning it?

In fact, he was so interesting to the CNN folks that they not only had his YouTube video question but he was there in person to ask follow up questions.

Isn’t that special? Apparently CNN really does think Americans are stupid, pulling this plant crap yet again. Vid available at many of those links.

Let’s go to the transcript, to see the Paul surrender monologues (apparently, the writers strike is not causing any problems for him)

First, some conspiracy

Paul: Well, it all depends on what you mean by “all of this.” the CFR exists, the Trilateral Commission exists. And it’s a, quote, “conspiracy of ideas.” This is an ideological battle. Some people believe in globalism. Others of us believe in national sovereignty.

And there is a move on toward a North American union, just like early on there was a move on for a European Union, and it eventually ended up.

And there is a move on toward a North American Union, just like early on there was a move on for a European Union, and eventually ended up. So we had NAFTA and moving toward a NAFTA highway. These are real things. It’s not somebody made these up. It’s not a conspiracy. They don’t talk about it, and they might not admit about it, but there’s been money spent on it. There was legislation passed in the Texas legislature unanimously to put a halt on it. They’re planning on millions of acres taken by eminent domain for an international highway from Mexico to Canada, which is going to make the immigration problem that much worse.

So it’s not so much a secretive conspiracy, it’s a contest between ideologies, whether we believe in our institutions here, our national sovereignty, our Constitution, or are we going to further move into the direction of international government, more U.N.

You know, this country goes to war under U.N. resolutions. I don’t like big government in Washington, so I don’t like this trend toward international government. We have a WTO that wants to control our drug industry, our nutritional products. So, I’m against all that.

But it’s not so much as a sinister conspiracy. It’s just knowledge is out there. If we look for it, you’ll realize that our national sovereignty is under threat.

On three government agencies he would cut, or is that cut and run?

And besides, what we can do is we can have a stronger national defense by changing our foreign policy. Our foreign policy is costing us a trillion dollars, and we can spend most of that or a lot of that money home if we would bring our troops home.

Note to self: it is helpful to turn the coffee pot on after putting the water and grounds in. Otherwise, no coffee! Idiot.

McCain on Paul

I just want to also say that Congressman Paul, I’ve heard him now in many debates talk about bringing our troops home, and about the war in Iraq and how it’s failed.

And I want to tell you that that kind of isolationism, sir, is what caused World War II. We allowed…

We allowed — we allowed Hitler to come to power with that kind of attitude of isolationism and appeasement.

McCain got some booing by the Ronulans and libs in the crowd.

After question on Iraq, and others were saying we had to leave with victory

Paul: The best commitment we can make to the Iraqi people is to give them their country back. That’s the most important thing that we can do.

Already, part of their country has been taken back. In the south, they claim the surge has worked, but the surge really hasn’t worked. There’s less violence, but al-Sadr has essentially won in the south.

Showing he has no clue, yet again. The Surge was primarily in the Baghdad area.

How about some of that good old fashioned blame America?

And it is irrelevant. But we have to realize why they want to come here. Wolfowitz even admitted that one of the major reasons that the Al Qaida was organized and energized was because of our military base in Saudi Arabia.

He says, “Oh, now, we can take the base away.” He understood why they came here. They come here because we’re occupying their country, just as we would object if they occupied our country.

Sounding like an isolationist liberal

The infrastructure problem in this country is very, very serious. We as Americans are taxed to blow up the bridges overseas. We’re taxed to go over and rebuild the bridges overseas while our bridges are falling down in this country.

This country is going bankrupt, and we can’t afford this. We need to take care of ourselves. We do not need to sacrifice one thing more. We just need to take care of ourselves and get the government out of our lives and off our back and out of our wallets.

Well, that was damn enjoyable. Jonathan Martin wonders if this was the conservative caricature debate. Yeah, I think the God, guns, gays, and the Confederate flag combo could have been a little more subtle, though they did save the more “gotcha” questions for the second half.

If we never have another Youtube debate, I’ll be happy. Idiotic. However, one thing: at least the GOP contenders had the cajones to go on a liberal network and answer some tough questions, unlike the softballs the Dem candidates get.

More: Michelle Malkin has a list of tons of plants. Even the Log Cabin Republicans questioner was full of it. He is an Obama supporter.

The fact that Kerr is listed as part of a gay and lesbian steering committee for Hillary Clinton definitely makes his participation in the debate very suspect. CNN claims they had no knowledge of this. It will be interesting to see how the Clinton campaign responds.

Regarding the question Kerr asked I was disappointed in the candidates’ answers. Having served in the military I do not personally believe a soldier’s sexual orientation affects their ability to do their job. Nor does it affect the ability of the soldiers around them to do theirs.

There were other questions that were plants, too, Silke. The least CNN could have done was check their backgrounds. But, they wanted to make their own statement.

I can understand what you are saying about gays in the military, Silke, but, from a male point of view, it is a lot different, especially when one has to share a shower and a bunk area. It is not to say they cannot do their jobs. I’m sure they are more then capable. But with men, it can create friction. And consider that so many are young and right out of high school, and still rather immature. Males can be brutal.

I think its just the idea that CNN believes they could get away with it without really trying to cover their tracks.

Anyways, this idea that the states ought to decide whether or not to legalize the killing of innocent babies is inherently vile and evil. Anyone who makes such an argument (like Ron Paul, Fred Thompson, etc.) is by definition a bad person.

To get a better idear of what I’m talking about check out this analysis of Ron Paul’s response to a question asked on YouTube about abortion a few months back.

Social conservatives/christians just plain don’t like gays.
Teach perhaps gays should also be housed in separate college dorms ?
These are the same arguments that were used to segregate blacks in the Armed Forces. Social conservatives learned to live with that, albeit reluctantly, and they can learn to live with openly gay men and women serving in our military.
Being anti-gay may rally the base for Republicans but they will lose the fair minded center of the American population.

John, while I do not approve of homosexuality, I support their right to be who they want to be. This is America, land of the free. Just because I do not like something does not mean I can ban it. I have no problem with gay civil unions, though I am against gay marriage.

The problem with openly gay men in the military is one of cohesion of force. Most men will not be comfortable taking showers and sleeping in the same area as a gay man. You can spin it all you want, but, such is human nature. What you are doing is forcing YOUR viewpoint down the throats of those who have a different opinion.

Teach, I do see your point but I respectfully disagree. Everyone in the military has a right not to be the object of inappropriate sexual advances be they homosexual or heterosexual ones. But that is a conduct issue not an issue of sexual orientation. I was in the military for six years and even in the field and on deployments the showers are not communal showers. They are individual stalls.

“And, BTW, I do not agree with or endorse the above comment by Quinn.”

You don’t agree or endorse any of it?

So, are you telling me that when you go to a restaurant to eat and some gay waiter comes up and starts telling you what the specials are in an intentional gay lisp that you don’t get nauseous or lose your appetite a little from his expressing that he sucks cock and let’s other guys ram their dicks up his ass?

I’m a normal, healthy guy who is turned off and disturbed from enduring a gay lisp that exists ONLY for the purpose of telling those within earshot “I SUCK COCK AND WANT EVERYONE TO KNOW IT AND ACCEPT MY BEHAVIOR!!”

And the great tragedy is that homos reproduce by molesting children as Carl Maves admits:

“How many gay men, I wonder, would have missed out on a valuable, liberating experience, one that initiated them into their sexuality, if it weren’t for so-called molestation?” (See the full article titled, “Getting Over It” in The Advocate, May 5, 1992, page 85.)

Silke, having served, you should know that you cannot legislate peoples thoughts on the matter. You can put the regs in the UCMJ, but that will not change peoples thoughts and feelings, which, yes, they are entitled to. Having openly gay males in the military, no matter how good they may be at their jobs, will damage unit cohesion, and you know lots and lots of young men who would otherwise join will decline that career path, and lots of others will not reenlist. You just cannot force a change going against hundreds and hundreds of years of esprit de corps.

There has to be trust, and, face it, most men do not feel that trust being in close contact with gay men. Of course, all the typical slurs will be thrown at those who are not comfortable around gay men. The military is not a place to be playing with social experiments like this. Perhaps, one day, they will be accepted.

Quinn, I disagree with comment #9. I am a hetero, and, quite frankly, feel very uncomfortable even seeing two gay men holding hands. However, in this issue, they are Americans, and deserve, if not a live and let live attitude, at least tolerance. Such is my opinion. You are entitled to yours. We will have to disagree on this.

LIVE TRAFFIC

YE OLDE ADVERTS

Categories

Calendar

Meta

Blog Stats

5,286,000 hits

THE CODE

All posts here are my views. None represent my employer. If ye can prove me wrong, so be it. Ye can rant and rave at me, but be mostly polite to any other commentors. I will put up with quite a bit, but be mostly respectful to others.

NOTICE In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material on this web site is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use" non-profit educational purposes, without permission of the copyright owner.